Sentences with phrase «placed global warming science»

For more than a week, the episode has fueled a fierce debate on the blogosphere and in newspaper opinion columns and once again placed global warming science under intense scrutiny.

Not exact matches

It's the perfect place to investigate the thorniest problem in all of climate science: how haze and clouds interact to boost or moderate global warming.

It's the perfect place to investigate the thorniest problem in all of climate science: how haze and clouds interact to influence global warming, either boosting or moderating it.

Unfortunately for policymakers and the public, while the basic science pointing to a rising human influence on climate is clear, many of the most important questions will remain surrounded by deep complexity and uncertainty for a long time to come: the pace at which seas will rise, the extent of warming from a certain buildup of greenhouse gases (climate sensitivity), the impact on hurricanes, the particular effects in particular places (what global warming means for Addis Ababa or Atlanta).

The story looks at genetics, manufactured biology, materials science, and technological options for limiting global warming, mainly through the lens of Jamais Cascio, a co-founder of WorldChanging.com whose thinking is sprinkled in many places but mostly here.

A book I like for putting a bunch of useful material in one place is Global Warming: The Hard Science by L.D. Danny Harvey, Pearson Education Limited 2000.

Dr. S. Fred Singer, one of the world's earliest and most credible critics of the theory that global warming is man - made and dangerous, will be recognized with an award for Lifetime Achievement in Climate Science at an international conference on global warming taking place July 7 — 9 in Las Vegas, Nevada.

For me, that begins with people accepting that there is no hiding place left in the science — the overwhelming consensus of the vast body of scientists that study climate is that the trends we are seeing in the air, the oceans and in our ecosystems are entirely consistent with the theory of global warming, while the alternatives offered by sceptical scientists — even the much heralded role of the Sun — so far fail that test.

As Churchill said, never, never, give up - and we won't until the global warming issue is returned to it proper place... science.

My other reason for «solution aversion» is the apparent lack of reliable data on current global warming trends and the poor peer review processes that have taken place in the climate science field so far.

Now, it doesn't go in the direction it sounds like you prefer, the long series of discussions on the science end up endorsing much of the core of the modern scientific consensus around the physics of greenhouse and global warming (though pointing out places where public media frequently argues well beyond the science).

This abysmal failure to show us all absolute evidence of illicit money exchanged for fabricated, demonstratively false science papers / assessments is the proverbial «mathematical certainty «that dooms the accusation, and places the whole idea of man - caused global warming in peril of sinking if its promoters can not defend their position against science - based criticism from skeptic scientists.

When the IPCC's «science» portion of the Assessment was released last fall, it was immediately faulted for being based upon climate models which have greatly overpredicted the amount of climate change that has been occurring largely because they completely missed the slowdown of the rate of global warming that has taken place over the past two decades.

The society had sent an official letter to Exxon, complaining about the oil company's «inaccurate and misleading» portrayal of the science of climate change and about its funding of lobby groups that deny global warming is taking place.

Not only did you attack my comment on the basis of my fairly offhand reference to hydrocarbon formation, (my intial comment primarily related to the dead zone off the Oregon coast and its possible causes and effects) you used my comment to claim that this website, which is one of the few places where unbiased scientific discussion of global warming appears outside of strictly academic circles, has «way too much junk science».

There are many public intellectual debates occurring over scientific and skeptical issues — the place of creationism vs evolution in public science classes, the including of alternative medicine in academic curricula, the validity of debate on global warming, etc..